piratesfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Jack Sparrow
The Black Spot Desperately need a page for this. Has anyone mentioned that this is a reference to Treasure Island? It was a death mark for pirates. I'd have to go back and look at the text to get the exact context.Jackalope 13:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC) ::Found it. Blind Pew hands Billy Bones the Black Spot, a circular piece of black paper, which signified a guilty verdict and a death sentence. It frightens Billy Bones so badly that he dies of a stroke. I'll go back and listen to the writers' commentary again, but I'm pretty sure they stated that the Black Spot was a direct steal from Treasure Island. Jackalope 14:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC) ::I think you're right. In "Treasure Island" the Black Spot is a disc of blackned paper, that acts as a "summons." The Black Spot is one of three remences on "Dead Man's Chest" to "Treasure Island." The others are that one unamed character is addnaifed as Hawkins, after Jim Hawkin's father, the other being the tune whicht Gibbs sings at the begining, which includes the words "dead man's chest." - Captain J. Sparrow 15:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Jar of Dirt See my comment on the Jar of Dirt page. Tia Dalma did indeed tell Jack why she was giving it to him. Sympathetic magic is a common part of african diaspora magical traditions, and of vodou in specific. The jar of dirt is portable "land" that Jack can carry with him even in the open ocean. Davy Jones cannot step ashore more than once every 10 years "Land is where you are safe Jack Sparrow, so you will carry land with you." Jackalope 13:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC) what the hell happened to this page? Four? Who exactly were the four people that tried to kill Jack? It was Will, Barbossa, Tia Dalma, and the fourth I don't know. Elizabeth *did* kill him...but after that, who else?--ScungiliGuy 17:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC) :The "three" are Elizabeth, Will and Barbossa. What makes you say Tia Dalma? I would have said Pintel if anyone, as Barbossa does order him to kill Jack ("Gents, ye all remember Captain Jack Sparrow. Kill him") and appears very annoyed at not being able to carry it out - [[User:Kwenn|'Captain Kwenn']] – Talk 21:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC) ::Tia Dalma is Calypso in human form, and she even said "Don't tell me you didn't enjoy it at the time". It's overt that she was trying to kill him off in a storm out at sea as she was Calypso.--ScungiliGuy 05:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC) :::Calypso was imprisoned by the first Brethren, before Jack was even born. There's no proof Dalma can conjour storms while in human form. And how do you get all that from "Don't tell me you didn't enjoy it at the time"? I presumed that to be a reference to the circumstances of Jack's death -- i.e. being a hero at last - [[User:Kwenn|'Captain Kwenn']] – Talk 11:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC) ::::But why then, did Jack say "As for you..." to Tia Dalma if she was guilty of no crime, to say nothing of his untimely death? I just say that it seems likely...but until we have confirmation from a canon source, we will not know for sure.--ScungiliGuy 03:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC) :I think it might be refering to one of the Asain pirates. Jack ran afoul of Sao Feng one, maybe one of Feng's men who was present had tried to kill Jack then. - Captain J. Sparrow Name I "manage" the pages on Pirates of the Caribbean (and all related articles) on Wikipedia. We all voted that "Captain Jack Sparrow" should be the title of the page, because it was how he wished to be named. I think that this page's appropriate title should be Captain Jack Sparrow for the very same reason. Your thoughts? :I'm going to be very frank with you. Wikipedia can easily be likened to a giant monkey with the maturity of a six-year-old. It is too large to be managed, there are too many topics, and too many people. This wiki is largely modeled after Wookieepedia, not Wikipedia, but even so, we would still put actual names on people's pages, regardless. I could honestly care less about what Wikipedia is doing, it is a stagnant beast, and its action's scarcely impress me at all. Had such an ignorant and pointless vote been held here, I can assure you it would not have passed.--Lord Cutler BeckettPort Royal 09:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC) ::I agree with Cutler Beckett on this one, the Wikipedia is a sinking ship and its been that way for years. I wouldnt quite say were modeled after Wookiepedia, though are policy's largely are, and no titles in article names is what the sighn says.--'\\Captain KAJ//' 09:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC) :Lord Cutler Beckett, I "frankly" think your comparison, although possibly accurate, was too harsh and uncalled for. (Yes, in know you were being frank, but think you could be a little more diplomatic next time.) But when all's said and done, I agree with your point. To the Wikipedia manger: I think it's all your call. What I would personaly do is leave the article name alone, but start the first sentance "Captain Jack Sparrow blah, blah, blah... - Captain J. Sparrow :Oh, spare me your sentimental incompetance. I was not insulting the anon; besides, you have no right to even attempt to reprimand me, and I think you should keep your foolish opinions to yourself.--Lord Cutler BeckettPort Royal 23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC) :Lord C. Beckett, it was my opinion you were insulting the anon. You, not me, claimed I was repermanding you, I was making a possibly incorrect observation. It wasn't my intent to offend you. On a forum, one user's opinion is as valid as another's, so your last statment seems to me rude if anything. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but you seem to have made the same error about my last entry Mate. "Savvy?" To sum it up, I think your overreacting, and I'm sorry if I was too snappy at you. - Captain J. Sparrow ::Lord Cutler Beckett, can I remind you that it is not within your power to tell people to keep their opinions to themselves, or to label them as incompetent or foolish.--'\\Captain KAJ//' 10:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC) :::I can tell him what ever I wish. I am not formally labeling J. Sparrow foolish. But his opinions on my civility (or lack there of), are foolish. Also, oversentimentalism is a sign of incompetance in my eyes. Who cares about what I think about Wikipedia anyways? I can assure you that I am not the only one to criticize Wikipedia for allowing IPs and idiot users run their fanon all over some pages, and I will certainly not be the last.--Lord Cutler BeckettPort Royal 21:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC) :You are right about having the right to own opinion, but from your last two statements, I can't help but feel confirmed in my views of your diplomatic skills, or, in your own words, "civility". Before you respond, if you are going to, I'd like you to keep in mind that this argument over a misunderstanding could go on forever. Now's your chance to end the cycle. - Captain J. Sparrow ::Lord Cutler Beckett, i completely agree with you in regards to Wikipedia, its a cesse pit. However I think it's a bit rich of you to have a go at J. Sparrow for attempting to reprimand you, when you do it to others with on a daily basis and have no offical function yourself.--'\\Captain KAJ//' 21:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC) :::I am a respectable contributor, and I would be on the road to adminship right now had I accepted your nomination. J. Sparrow was attempting to reprimand me on the grounds that I was being "harsh"; I don't get all hyped up over things as silly and insignificant as who's being "harsh" or "rude" to anons. J. Sparrow: This "argument" as you call it can't on forever. It's already drawing to a close, as we all run out of points to make and reasons to give. To be honest, I have not done anything wrong. You can all say I am being self-contradictory, but the two circumstances are completely different, no matter what you say. Now, you can be the gentlemen, and stop the cycle yourselves.--Lord Cutler BeckettPort Royal 21:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC) :I never questioned your honor, and I'm a little surprised that you're this sensative about a little point. After all you are a "respectable contributor" and Pirate Lord; I'm just a user who disagreed with you. As for not getting "hyped over silly things," I believe you are doing just that now. But, you are right, you've done nothing wrong, I don't think either of us has. Now, if you will pardon the expression, I'm going to tuck my tail between my legs and leave. I doubt I have anything more to say. If this doesn't count as breaking the cycle, once again it's up to you, Lord C. Beckett. - Captain J. Sparrow ::::Let's all stop this bickering post haste. Beckett, I must concur with the other users; you are often considerably rude here insulting others and acting holier-than-thou more than a few times to count. And seriously, "I am a respectable contributor"; someone has a high view of himself! For someone who's so "respectable", you certainly are not acting the part. Now let's move to business. All this fighting is not important. What *is* is this; we must leave the article as just Jack Sparrow. The "captain" title, while true and while important to storyline, is not Jack's real name. So let's just agree to disagree and leave it be.--ScungiliGuy 02:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC) :I'm not going to argue against your rediculous comments, simply because I have better things to do. But to the person who I thought was an anon, remember to sign your name with four ~~~~. And Scungili guy (and all others who do this) please combine your thoughts together in one paragraph, it is very confusing when you have it broken up, for a while I thought your first comments were from an anon.--Lord Cutler BeckettPort Royal 11:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC) ::What's the problem with the comment? Its offensive against Wikipedia and not against any user. However, I liked this comparsion. And as for the name, I agree with Captain J. Sparrow that we should keep the artcle name as Jack Sparrow but the text should beginn with Capitain Jack Sparrow is a pirate.... El Chupacabra 13:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC) :::ScungiliGuy: In case you had not noticed this argument was already over, we were in agreement that Jack Sparrow should remain Jack Sparrow. And although Lord Cutler Beckett over steps the mark sometimes he IS a valuble member of this project and is far more respectable than some, and given your latest exploits regarding Pieces of Eight, Davy Jones, Sumbhajee etc you have got a cheek to question his motives. In short, congratulations for openng up an old wound and pouring a buckett load of salt into it. - [[User:KickAssJedi|'Captain KAJ']] – Shipwreck Cove 16:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC) :Although I think Jack Sparrow himself would tell us something like "Friends, I'm Captain Jack Sparrow, savvy?", I think leaving the article as it is is the best plan. Since the question has been settled, should we stop talking here before another argument gets started? - Captain J. Sparrow ::KAJ: Let us not say an old wound, just a healing wound that was over leeched by a drunken 18th century doctor. But at any rate yes, we shouldn't talk about this any more, Jack Sparrow stays Jack Sparrow, and no title shall be added to the introduction, because if we do that with Jack, then we would have to do it with everybody else, and that would overstretch the limits of my already declining sanity. Titles are kept in infoboxes, and any one who's watched the movies knows Jack's a captain, so there would be little point in emphasizing he's a captain just because he does so in the movies. This is an encyclopedia after all, not some free-for-all disco hall (don't bother asking, I don't get the comparison either...). Now please, everyone drop it or I'll have this entire talk page locked!--Lord Cutler BeckettPort Royal 21:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC) :::::I was *not* aware that the argument was over. But still, I have reason to be more than just a little upset at other people's rudeness. And please Master Jedi, *you* must not open up the old wound here. I have explained that my motives beyond said edits were with good intention and not vandalism. It's not that I did not want to source my statements so much as that I couldn't. So let's leave that one aside. And we move on; case closed, then. Jack Sparrow stays the way he is.--ScungiliGuy 02:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Wow, where did this go? I'm sorry about causing a big thing here... (cowers in a corner) BlackPearl14 04:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Next Order of Business Jack has many trinkets, bits and bobs about his belt, but I cannot be sure of what they are. The ones that I *do* know of are the chicken foot( used as a symbol of fertility), two pieces of fur and nothing more.--ScungiliGuy 06:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)